A great post on the Conscientious blog asking the question – “What makes a great portrait?” The question was sent out to some in the photography community.

In every portrait session I do I learn something new about portraiture. I am not sure if I am “making” a portrait. Sure I am determining lighting, camera angle, camera settings and lens, all things that determine the resulting image and how that image will be interpreted. A portrait with a shallow depth of field will have a different feel that one that is sharp to infinity. So my choice in these factors is a direct statement on my intent. Now the much more difficult and unpredictable variable is the portrait sitter. The person who is having her portrait taken is really the wildcard in the whole equation. Is she in a good mood, a soulful mood, playful, angry, depressed, overjoyed – and if she is anyone of those things is she going to portray the exact opposite when siting before the camera. Is she honest in what she is portraying? Do I, the photographer, care?

If she is happy can/will she portray someone who is sad? If she is sad, can she portray someone who is happy? Of course this happens all the time. Shuffle through the months entertainment magazines and you will see any number of made-up, stylized portraits of celebrities and socialites that may have very little of that celebrity’s true personality. The photographer and team are hired to photograph with a specific look being the result. Selling more magazines, promoting movie/tv show/record/product. This takes us back to the subject of intent. In my eyes, a portrait is a battle of intents, the photographer vs. the sitter. In those magazines I see more the intent of the art director/creative director/publicist/photographer than anything else. So are those really portraits if they are more sales pitches than anything else? It is confusing. I find myself confused even as I write.

Of course we have the cases where the intent of the sitter wins and the photographer does not think it is a good photograph. Perhaps the person being photographed is not conveying any real emotion, feeling, personality – anything that will make a photograph interesting. However it is a portrait. It is capturing an individual in the way they are. But why isn’t it good? Is that what a portrait is supposed to do? Capture someone in the way they are?
I am not quite sure. But I have seen plenty of good portraits. And they all have that “thing”. I think it’s that intangible thing that escapes definition or description. Like some others said in the Conscientious posting, it’s that thing you see when you see it. You don’t quite know why but it touches you somewhere and you say – “that’s fantastic”.

For myself I think a portrait that I like is more a portrait of me than that of the one who was photographed. I think it speaks more to who I am, my likes and dislikes, my mood and personality, my sense of who I am and what is good. It’s like listening to a song when you’re in a certain mood. Or hearing an old song from years past when you were a much different person than you are now. You remember who you were when that song came out. So you liking that song then speaks of who you were then. Conversely how you feel about it now speaks of who you are today.

I love portraiture. I love images that capture a sense of a person. A mood, a feeling. When photographing people I tend to “go in”, focusing on the face and and torso. Not to say I do not do environmental portraiture. I really enjoy it. I take any opportunity I can to do such portraits. As circumstances and opportunities have it, the close-in stuff is what I am doing right now.

Jeff Singer made an interesting post on his blog about what a photographer’s images say about him/her. For Jeff, specifically, how he tries to make his portraits subjects look cool.

That immediately got me thinking how do I try to make my subjects look in a portrait. When I am photographing someone what would make me happiest? Do I want them wild and crazy? Maybe that aloof, disconnected look? (think contemporary fine art).
Quirky? I really thought about this because there are definitely ways that I would prefer my sitter to be. Namely relaxed, a little contemplative – what I call the “soulful look”. Ultimately themselves. But maybe themselves make for a not so interesting picture (terrible thing to say). I sometimes say, “if you can’t be who you are….be who you want to be..” If that makes any real bloody sense. Ultimately a portrait really says just as much about the photographer as the person. As the photographer you are imposing your own vision, your sense of a person, onto that person. It’s similar to meeting someone new, someone you like and to whom you are really drawn. Without really knowing that person, are we attracted to who that person truly is – or who we would like/hope them to be.